I think T-Rexes would have only one reaction to raptors, search and destroy. There's no way they would have tolerated them as they were a danger to young T-Rex's. Even a group of Raptors would have kept a distance from T-rex's for this reason. They were massive but T-Rex's were quite nimble. Their bones showed they fought with each other frequently which points towards them having a violent nature and were not to be messed with. That being said, a Triceratops stampede must've been something awesome to witness.
As I watched this, I pondered upon something the first section of the video made me think about. This is that, for all the detail the fossilised bones can give us about the animal in question, the bones can very seldom shed light on aspects of behaviour. The narrator talked about how modern African Elephants, being the largest land living mammals, aren't targeted by predators. Yet, a few years ago, a BBC Natural History Unit documented how a pride of lions learned how to hunt, bring down and kill elephants, a survival tactic the pride employed when easier pray had become scarce. The thing is, two different generations employed this skill several years apart, during two difficult seasons for the pride. I hate to use the words 'custom' and 'tradition' because they're too anthropomorphic, but I can't find anything that fits better. So what does it have to do with T-Rex and my earlier statement about fossil bones being unable to give many behavioural clues? Well, bones alone can't tell us just how the dinos lived. It's always been assumed that carnivorous dinosaurs were solitary livers and hunters, but the truth is that we just don't know for certain. Every now and again, suggestions are made for this or that carnivorous species to live in pairs or packs. Again, the fossilised remains can give little or no evidence either way. Given that cat species show the whole range of co-habitation systems from solitary to group living, it wouldn't surprise me if carnivorous dinos did the same, with size having no effect on living arrangements. Nor would it surprise me to learn that sauropods weren't as immune to predation as has been suggested. All it would take would be a scarcity of regular prey and a desperate group of T-Rexes, and we'd have the Mesozoic equivalent of elephant hunting Lions!
yea but as you stated. Its not a common thing to happen. Its 99,9% guaranteed that these things happened, but we have no prove for it. Lions also usually stay far away from adult elephants. And a lot of lions die in the desperate attempt to kill an elephant. So although i agree with you that this scenario accured it was not a normal thing for the average trex. But i can imagine that some specialized on dangerous prey, which is a common trade in orcas for example
I would assume that the lions attempting to predate an elephant or any Raptors or T-Rexs attempting to take down Sauropods would have concentrated on the heels or upper back of the legs to 'hamstring' those preys which is what dogs do 'nipping at the heels' and African poachers do to bring elephants down. The poachers use traps that wrap wire around the upper heel area to cut into and sever the hamstring hamstringing elephants over that bit of time it takes for the wire to cut thru far enough. A hamstrung animal would be a fallen animal incapable of much of any defense of any type. The very large Sauropods would likely have been too much trouble to bite thru all that leg material for anything smaller than, say, a T-Rex, but being inside away from the tail under the tail working on the hind leg(s)they could likely have done so 'IF' T-Rexs were as smart as Raptors supposedly were or dogs ARE.
Why are you giving grammar lessons to AI created content? I would prefer that they(AI) stay obviously detectable due to their poor grammar. If they sound more "real" & convincing, then you will be fooled more often.
Where is the edmontosaurus ? Even the fully grown edmontosaurus have ability to kill a sub-adult rex and even possibly cause severe injure to adult large rexes ?
A trex would probably only 1v1 a full grown triceratops if it were basically desperate and one breath away from death. It was justbtoo dangerous to approay any other time
While not likely quite the 'nightmare' to T-Rex or raptors or predators in general, I feel Sauropods are overlooked for having 'defensive' capabilities because it is considered that their size was their protection and defense, but consider that they were not always that big but grew to those very large sized. I think that their main weapon would have been their tails used as whips. A very large Sauropod's use of its tail as a whip might could have broken fully grown T-Rex legs, tails, ribs and necks or just have blasted Raptors to pieces in defense of themselves and their young-as how the young were even able to survive at all. Sauropods like should have a fairly hard but somewhat flexible covering on the ends of their tails to prevent the ends of their own tails from also being blasted to pieces from such use.
A 15th century man-at-arms or knight could have solved the Ankylosaurus riddle had one lived 650 years. Once blacksmiths could produce hardenable steel plate in significant quantities, melee weapons without serious percussive potential or powerful piercing points plummeted in efficacy. It requires either extremely high speed, or high mass and inertia with a focusing face or spike to harm a wearer through it. This is why we see very large hammers, picks, spikes, or axes on much longer poles instead of spears, cutting spears/glaives, long axes as in the 9th to 12th centuries. Stegosaurus' tail with 14"+ long spikes is probably a much better anti predator device, causing serious wounds with less force, being able to be deployed more quickly because it's less massive, and as a lighter weight on the end of a flexible lever disturb the gait less with induced motion as it bounces with each step. Against a slow opponent wearing heavy plates however, a giant maul or hammer is devastating and can either defeat armor or just transmit the force right through it into vulnerable tissue below if a blow lands near softer fatty tissue like liver/brain.
To put it short, prey animals of tyrannosaurus in general were not easy to access since most of them were prepared just as well; be it for flight or fight. If it isn't the prey that doesn't deter a rex, it's competition with another rex that will.
I really hate the “scientists say this weapon was just for display/mating rights BUT if a predator comes along…”. I, a moron, feel like they developed that shit for anytime shit got serious, fighting, fuckin or flexin.
Some of those battles would have been epic but let's get real, no one has seen live dinosaurs, so we really do know about their behavior or what they ate or how they lived. It is all guesswork. It is that guesswork that stimulates the imagination about all the different breeds of dinosaurs.
Triceratops horns were very NOT DELICATE but very strong. They were made of solid bone and covered with keratine. A Tyrannosaurus Rex would not go after a healthy adult Triceratops. Only young or sick. And if possible avoid them all together and go for a hadrosaur. A blow with Ankylosaurus club to the leg of a Rex and its leg would be broken. Which means the end, since it could no longer feed itself. Dakotaraptor would only be a danger to young Rexes. Even in packs, a Rex, Trike or Anky would just be to big and to armed.
They didn't even exist together in terms of location and time unless you're trying to reference Jurassic. Even if they did, the rex already has the endurance and intelligence to outwit most other megatheropods. It's pretty much backed on various paleontologists' opinions on the subject matter...
No, there's no such thing as the closest T.rex's living relative, all birds are closer to T.rex in equal way, the Chicken thing was a misinformation that got out of hand, if I correctly remember, they were discussing about metabolism and that's when they mentioned something about T.rex and Chicken, but not as close relatives but just a mere comparison, if I compare myself to a Dolphin that doesn't make me a close dolphin relative, also nor the Emus neither the Cassowaries are, birds were born in the Jurassic, long before T.rex.
The main difference in cultural ethos between the British (England/Great Britain/United kingdom) and the United States (est. 3 September 1783 per Article 1st from the Treaty of Paris): - The British are on the wrong end of Colonialism/Mercantilism----Britain, the once global empire, is reliant upon trade alliances with other nations to sustain itself. Planet Earth/Homo sapiens sapiens endured a horrific maturation process; no more undeveloped lands to Colonize exist and no more Indigenous Peoples to have their homeland invaded, natural resources extracted, and their culture desecrated to serve CAUCASIAN, EUROPEAN, IMPERIALIST, MONARCHIAL aims. * The British and Jewish are similar in their inherent desire for colonization control and to always have the upper hand in all relations, for the British this attitude was promulgated from centuries of usurping Indigenous Cultures by force of technology----that technological advantage is gone; moreover, many of the cultures r@ped by the British Empire are fast becoming Autarky capable societies meriting respect from other First-World Cultures----India for example... _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ - Native White (English-speaking only) Citizens of the New England States, as well the entire Union, are capable of Autarky and are not reliant on foreign nations and diplomatic blah blah for Its survival. * United States attaining Autarky status shall roll as the Union achieving Self-Actualization. WE do not approve of Colonialism and in fact believe in strong well-regulated borders. The United States was never intended to role as a landing for failed societies or to welcome foreigners and dregs from backward cultures. Immigration Policy (est. 17 September 1787) for the UNITED STATES: "...to ourselves and our posterity..." NOT "...their tired, their poor, their huddled masses..."
I think T-Rexes would have only one reaction to raptors, search and destroy. There's no way they would have tolerated them as they were a danger to young T-Rex's. Even a group of Raptors would have kept a distance from T-rex's for this reason. They were massive but T-Rex's were quite nimble. Their bones showed they fought with each other frequently which points towards them having a violent nature and were not to be messed with. That being said, a Triceratops stampede must've been something awesome to witness.
As I watched this, I pondered upon something the first section of the video made me think about. This is that, for all the detail the fossilised bones can give us about the animal in question, the bones can very seldom shed light on aspects of behaviour. The narrator talked about how modern African Elephants, being the largest land living mammals, aren't targeted by predators. Yet, a few years ago, a BBC Natural History Unit documented how a pride of lions learned how to hunt, bring down and kill elephants, a survival tactic the pride employed when easier pray had become scarce. The thing is, two different generations employed this skill several years apart, during two difficult seasons for the pride. I hate to use the words 'custom' and 'tradition' because they're too anthropomorphic, but I can't find anything that fits better.
So what does it have to do with T-Rex and my earlier statement about fossil bones being unable to give many behavioural clues? Well, bones alone can't tell us just how the dinos lived. It's always been assumed that carnivorous dinosaurs were solitary livers and hunters, but the truth is that we just don't know for certain. Every now and again, suggestions are made for this or that carnivorous species to live in pairs or packs. Again, the fossilised remains can give little or no evidence either way.
Given that cat species show the whole range of co-habitation systems from solitary to group living, it wouldn't surprise me if carnivorous dinos did the same, with size having no effect on living arrangements. Nor would it surprise me to learn that sauropods weren't as immune to predation as has been suggested. All it would take would be a scarcity of regular prey and a desperate group of T-Rexes, and we'd have the Mesozoic equivalent of elephant hunting Lions!
yea but as you stated. Its not a common thing to happen. Its 99,9% guaranteed that these things happened, but we have no prove for it. Lions also usually stay far away from adult elephants. And a lot of lions die in the desperate attempt to kill an elephant. So although i agree with you that this scenario accured it was not a normal thing for the average trex. But i can imagine that some specialized on dangerous prey, which is a common trade in orcas for example
@@isaacA38 your assumptions are just as baseless
@@babystacks yea no shit sherlock. I was guessing as well.
I would assume that the lions attempting to predate an elephant or any Raptors or T-Rexs attempting to take down Sauropods would have concentrated on the heels or upper back of the legs to 'hamstring' those preys which is what dogs do 'nipping at the heels' and African poachers do to bring elephants down. The poachers use traps that wrap wire around the upper heel area to cut into and sever the hamstring hamstringing elephants over that bit of time it takes for the wire to cut thru far enough. A hamstrung animal would be a fallen animal incapable of much of any defense of any type. The very large Sauropods would likely have been too much trouble to bite thru all that leg material for anything smaller than, say, a T-Rex, but being inside away from the tail under the tail working on the hind leg(s)they could likely have done so 'IF' T-Rexs were as smart as Raptors supposedly were or dogs ARE.
Bad grammar in the title. Sorry, but it should be either “This dinosaur gave T-Rex nightmares…” or “The dinosaur that gave T-Rex nightmares”.
From one Grammar Inquisitor to another, there is no need to apologize!
Why are you giving grammar lessons to AI created content? I would prefer that they(AI) stay obviously detectable due to their poor grammar. If they sound more "real" & convincing, then you will be fooled more often.
Everyone has just gotta be a expert
They changed the title after my hilarious comment that they didn't find hilarious
@@mattstyles2498 🤣
Where is the edmontosaurus ? Even the fully grown edmontosaurus have ability to kill a sub-adult rex and even possibly cause severe injure to adult large rexes ?
Tyrannosaurus rex is my favourite dinosaur
I really love Dinosaurs
Its nice to know that even tRex had dreams and nightmares, really humanizes the monster
Nanotyrannus has been called the young T-rex killers.
I just wish we could see earth 🌎 long ago. Maybe someday VR will become super good and earth time-line simulator will exist 😮
Mosquitoes deserve a mention. Very dangerous creatures.
One thing that frightened a T-Rex was triceratops
Brachio is my favorite but hail the king tyrannosaurus
A trex would probably only 1v1 a full grown triceratops if it were basically desperate and one breath away from death. It was justbtoo dangerous to approay any other time
While not likely quite the 'nightmare' to T-Rex or raptors or predators in general, I feel Sauropods are overlooked for having 'defensive' capabilities because it is considered that their size was their protection and defense, but consider that they were not always that big but grew to those very large sized. I think that their main weapon would have been their tails used as whips. A very large Sauropod's use of its tail as a whip might could have broken fully grown T-Rex legs, tails, ribs and necks or just have blasted Raptors to pieces in defense of themselves and their young-as how the young were even able to survive at all.
Sauropods like should have a fairly hard but somewhat flexible covering on the ends of their tails to prevent the ends of their own tails from also being blasted to pieces from such use.
Might as well put the road runner and Wiley cryote in the mix too
A 15th century man-at-arms or knight could have solved the Ankylosaurus riddle had one lived 650 years. Once blacksmiths could produce hardenable steel plate in significant quantities, melee weapons without serious percussive potential or powerful piercing points plummeted in efficacy. It requires either extremely high speed, or high mass and inertia with a focusing face or spike to harm a wearer through it. This is why we see very large hammers, picks, spikes, or axes on much longer poles instead of spears, cutting spears/glaives, long axes as in the 9th to 12th centuries. Stegosaurus' tail with 14"+ long spikes is probably a much better anti predator device, causing serious wounds with less force, being able to be deployed more quickly because it's less massive, and as a lighter weight on the end of a flexible lever disturb the gait less with induced motion as it bounces with each step. Against a slow opponent wearing heavy plates however, a giant maul or hammer is devastating and can either defeat armor or just transmit the force right through it into vulnerable tissue below if a blow lands near softer fatty tissue like liver/brain.
T-Rex, Prehistoric King of Halloween 🎃
Thanks, if they have not been destroyed, would human beings ever had existed?
To put it short, prey animals of tyrannosaurus in general were not easy to access since most of them were prepared just as well; be it for flight or fight. If it isn't the prey that doesn't deter a rex, it's competition with another rex that will.
Correction, if they would have never had been a destroyed
“This dinosaur gave t-rex nightmares”
**shows t-rex killing said dinosaur**
A mega-rhino! Probably similar to Ceratopsians due to convergent evolution: a similar environment breeds similar adaptations.
Clearly, being the King Of The Cretaceous was not an easy task.
I thought Dakotaraptor had already been determined to be other species?
i always thought t rex as a scavenger. no idea why but will always think they ate everything. what did scavenge the dead big sauropods?
I really hate the “scientists say this weapon was just for display/mating rights BUT if a predator comes along…”. I, a moron, feel like they developed that shit for anytime shit got serious, fighting, fuckin or flexin.
Some of those battles would have been epic but let's get real, no one has seen live dinosaurs, so we really do know about their behavior or what they ate or how they lived. It is all guesswork. It is that guesswork that stimulates the imagination about all the different breeds of dinosaurs.
"This dinosaurs..." I'm out, creepy AI.
😂 cry about it
what creeps me out is the sort of whispering the narrator employees. wth!
Actually those pictures were quite good, I've seen much worse.
Pretty sure the title was a human error. Lol. Not even AI would be that blatantly incorrect.
I am crying about it.
Triceratops horns were very NOT DELICATE but very strong. They were made of solid bone and covered with keratine.
A Tyrannosaurus Rex would not go after a healthy adult Triceratops. Only young or sick. And if possible avoid them all together and go for a hadrosaur.
A blow with Ankylosaurus club to the leg of a Rex and its leg would be broken. Which means the end, since it could no longer feed itself.
Dakotaraptor would only be a danger to young Rexes. Even in packs, a Rex, Trike or Anky would just be to big and to armed.
You missed one and you know it: Spinosaurus.
They didn't even exist together in terms of location and time unless you're trying to reference Jurassic. Even if they did, the rex already has the endurance and intelligence to outwit most other megatheropods. It's pretty much backed on various paleontologists' opinions on the subject matter...
@@TyrannoWright You don't say?
Stegasourus?
The closest living thing related to the T-Rex 🦖 is the chicken.
Don't you mean emus or cassowaries? Chickens are an heavily boasted oversight.
No, there's no such thing as the closest T.rex's living relative, all birds are closer to T.rex in equal way, the Chicken thing was a misinformation that got out of hand, if I correctly remember, they were discussing about metabolism and that's when they mentioned something about T.rex and Chicken, but not as close relatives but just a mere comparison, if I compare myself to a Dolphin that doesn't make me a close dolphin relative, also nor the Emus neither the Cassowaries are, birds were born in the Jurassic, long before T.rex.
@ Ah…
@ Chicken 🍗
The main difference in cultural ethos between the British (England/Great Britain/United kingdom) and the United States (est. 3 September 1783 per Article 1st from the Treaty of Paris):
- The British are on the wrong end of Colonialism/Mercantilism----Britain, the once global empire, is reliant upon trade alliances
with other nations to sustain itself. Planet Earth/Homo sapiens sapiens endured a horrific maturation process; no more
undeveloped lands to Colonize exist and no more Indigenous Peoples to have their homeland invaded, natural resources
extracted, and their culture desecrated to serve CAUCASIAN, EUROPEAN, IMPERIALIST, MONARCHIAL aims.
* The British and Jewish are similar in their inherent desire for colonization control and to always have the upper hand in all relations, for the British this attitude was promulgated from centuries of usurping Indigenous Cultures by force of technology----that technological advantage is gone; moreover, many of the cultures r@ped by the British Empire are fast becoming Autarky capable societies meriting respect from other First-World Cultures----India for example...
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- Native White (English-speaking only) Citizens of the New England States, as well the entire Union, are capable of Autarky and
are not reliant on foreign nations and diplomatic blah blah for Its survival.
* United States attaining Autarky status shall roll as the Union achieving Self-Actualization. WE do not approve of Colonialism and in fact believe in strong well-regulated borders. The United States was never intended to role as a landing for failed societies or to welcome foreigners and dregs from backward cultures.
Immigration Policy (est. 17 September 1787) for the UNITED STATES:
"...to ourselves and our posterity..."
NOT
"...their tired, their poor, their huddled masses..."